MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2334447523 · doi:10.1242/jeb.084475

GUPPIES REPRODUCE FROM BEYOND THE GRAVE

2013· letter· en· W2334447523 on OpenAlexaff
Andy J. Turko

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2013
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuppyBiologyZoologyOffspringEcologyPoeciliaSpermReproductive successFisheryFish <Actinopterygii>DemographyPopulationGeneticsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Humans can be forgiven for assuming that successful reproduction requires both partners to be alive. Amazingly, this isn't the case for the Trinidadian guppy. Under laboratory conditions, female guppies are able to store sperm for up to a year, potentially allowing them to produce offspring even if the males are no longer around. However, several other studies have suggested that the last male to mate with a female ends up fertilizing the bulk of her offspring. This last-male-in advantage may mean that stored sperm is rarely used by guppies in nature. Studying this phenomenon in natural surroundings poses many logistical problems, but in a recent report, Andrés López-Sepulcre and his international team of collaborators not only proved that they were up to the challenge of tackling this problem in the wild but also discovered just how often female guppies use the sperm of deceased mates.Undertaking a year-long mark–recapture study in Trinidad, the team introduced individually marked guppies with known genetic ‘fingerprints’ to a short stretch of the Guanapo River, which is isolated from existing downstream guppy populations by a swiftly flowing waterfall. Then, each month, the researchers painstakingly caught and identified almost every guppy longer than 13 mm present in the study site. These monthly assessments were used to determine when each guppy died, and also allowed the researchers to collect a few scales from each guppy born at the field site so that their mother and father could be determined using genetic fingerprinting. López-Sepulcre and colleagues then developed a complex mathematical model to estimate the reproductive contributions of dead males to the introduced guppy population.The research team found that almost 50% of reproductively active males sired young after they had died and, amazingly, over 30% of reproductive males were successful only after they were dead. Some offspring were even fathered by males that had been dead for 8 months. Perhaps this allows relatively short-lived males (with an average lifespan of 3 months) to continue to mate with females over their much longer lives (15 months). The researchers also suggested that sperm storage would allow the genetic material of male guppies to survive the rainy season, when males die in much higher numbers than females. From the female perspective, the researchers proposed that using sperm from many males, both dead and alive, would produce offspring with higher genetic diversity. In a fluctuating habitat like a Trinidadian stream, this should increase the odds of producing some offspring that are genetically well suited to whatever environmental conditions the future has in store.By the end of their year-long study, the researchers found that posthumously conceived guppies comprised almost 25% of the total reproductive population. This both highlights the importance of stored sperm to female guppies in nature and also raises red flags for measurements of genetic diversity in other species where females can store sperm: if the potential genetic contributions of dead males are not assessed, population sizes may be significantly underestimated. Apparently, you won't hear, ‘Till death do us part’, at a guppy wedding.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.007

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Biology→Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→